Sorry, I'm just not scared. I know three of those already own wins over us, but those were road games and we shot ourselves in the foot in each one. NONE of them were the main reason their teams won. Of that list, Cutler is the one who I think we need to really worry about, but even he has been known to flop time to time. Who is he going to throw to other than Marshall, who will be Shermanized?

5 of these 8 have to come into our house of pain and feel the love from the 12s. It may even be Colin Kaepernick playing for the Whiners come Christmas Eve Eve, since they may already have fome field wrapped up - although I doubt numbnutz Harbaugh will pass up the chance to beat Carroll again.

All of them are guys who throw those short little passes that absolutely kill our defense though. I don't think that should be ignored, even if none of them are "scary" they are all the type of guy who comes out and looks like Unitas reincarnated for a Sunday against that stupid soft zone.

Sorry, I'm just not scared. I know three of those already own wins over us, but those were road games and we shot ourselves in the foot in each one. NONE of them were the main reason their teams won. Of that list, Cutler is the one who I think we need to really worry about, but even he has been known to flop time to time. Who is he going to throw to other than Marshall, who will be Shermanized?

5 of these 8 have to come into our house of pain and feel the love from the 12s. It may even be Colin Kaepernick playing for the Whiners come Christmas Eve Eve, since they may already have fome field wrapped up - although I doubt numbnutz Harbaugh will pass up the chance to beat Carroll again.

SharkHawk wrote:All of them are guys who throw those short little passes that absolutely kill our defense though. I don't think that should be ignored, even if none of them are "scary" they are all the type of guy who comes out and looks like Unitas reincarnated for a Sunday against that stupid soft zone.

True - but I think the adjustments are coming.

We also rush the passer much better at home, and that's a huge part of it.

For the most part I agree with this post, but I have to point out that Kevin Kolb coming in to replace Skelton was the reason we lost. He destroyed us. However, I think that was a fluke and I don't see any way he can do it again in Seattle.

Agreed. You can usually tell by the QB how a team is going to fare that week.

The one wildcard in there is Cutler. The guy can be terrible one week, then be the best QB in the NFL the next week. We need to follow GB's game plans for him, since they tend to own him. He HATES getting hit, and will throw a few picks if you get pressure on him. Unfortunately, with their defense, we're going to need 4 turnovers to win that game. 2 since we won't be moving the ball well, and 2 more since their defense is going to get theirs against us. They lead the league in TO's.

Tannehill is also playing very well, actually better than Russell Wilson. If he's back from injury, and he's at home, he could have a good day against us as well.

The OP also has Stafford in green, which I am assuming is a win for us, since all the other green QB names were our wins. But Stafford beat us, unfortunately.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:I'm hoping for three picks this Sunday... minimum.

That means the usual two Christian Ponder throws just for the hell of it, and one that we'll actually earn. Hopefully we can earn a few more too.

LOL! I am soooo happy that Pete and John didn't settle for an "okay" QB that will get you wins but never win you the big one and shot for the moon. Look at all of those Seahawk fans that wanted Sanchez, Ponder, Gabbert (do we really know where he was ranked by PC/JS?), Locker, Cassell, I think Orton was mentioned once, Carson Palmer, Kevin Kolb!, etc, etc!

Pete and John are having the last laugh after 3 years of hearing it from experts in the draft and free agency (yes you Michael Lombardi).

I'm hoping we get Walter Thurmond III back soon as I believe he will perform his magic on those short completions and transform them in to INTs.

ivotuk wrote:LOL! I am soooo happy that Pete and John didn't settle for an "okay" QB that will get you wins but never win you the big one and shot for the moon. Look at all of those Seahawk fans that wanted Sanchez, Ponder, Gabbert (do we really know where he was ranked by PC/JS?), Locker, Cassell, I think Orton was mentioned once, Carson Palmer, Kevin Kolb!, etc, etc!

Pete and John are having the last laugh after 3 years of hearing it from experts in the draft and free agency (yes you Michael Lombardi).

Uhhh..

Wilson is 4-4 as a starter and actually has a lower rating than Palmer, Kolb and Ponder. He has an identical TD/INT ratio as Mark Sanchez (who btw would have been drafted by Jim Mora/Tim Ruskell - not Pete Carroll), and Blaine Gabbert with far inferior weapons and a generally awful team around him only averages about 10 yards less per start than Wilson. Not sure when Matt Cassel was considered an option, as he was shipped to Kansas City the same year we hired Mora.

So far Russell Wilson is "okay" .. and far from great. Maybe he winds up that way, but... nowhere near it now.

ivotuk wrote:LOL! I am soooo happy that Pete and John didn't settle for an "okay" QB that will get you wins but never win you the big one and shot for the moon. Look at all of those Seahawk fans that wanted Sanchez, Ponder, Gabbert (do we really know where he was ranked by PC/JS?), Locker, Cassell, I think Orton was mentioned once, Carson Palmer, Kevin Kolb!, etc, etc!

Pete and John are having the last laugh after 3 years of hearing it from experts in the draft and free agency (yes you Michael Lombardi).

Uhhh..

Wilson is 4-4 as a starter and actually has a lower rating than Palmer, Kolb and Ponder. He has an identical TD/INT ratio as Mark Sanchez (who btw would have been drafted by Jim Mora/Tim Ruskell - not Pete Carroll), and Blaine Gabbert with far inferior weapons and a generally awful team around him only averages about 10 yards less per start than Wilson.

So far Russell Wilson is "okay" .. and far from great. Maybe he winds up that way, but... nowhere near it now.

He's LIGHTYEARS ahead of the QB you chose as your screen name in his first 8 starts. He's already lapped him by a year or so. Hass even had the luxury of backing up in GB, playing for an offensive coach, and maybe the best QB tutor in this era.

But, why use common sense and an understanding for the game, when you can cram stats everywhere?

pehawk wrote:He's LIGHTYEARS ahead of the QB you chose as your screen name in his first 8 starts. He's already lapped him by a year or so. Hass even had the luxury of backing up in GB, playing for an offensive coach, and maybe the best QB tutor in this era.

But, why use common sense and an understanding for the game, when you can cram stats everywhere?

Or you can just completely change what I said. That works too.

Never said Matt Hasselbeck was great after 8 games. That would be foolish. I think it's also foolish to say Wilson is so much better than the other guys he listed, when he's not. So far he's been pretty average.

The fawning everyone does over the guy though is truly comical.

.....

Anyway back to the original point - the QB's down the stretch probably, on paper, will be weaker than the bunch we saw in the first half.. that said.. don't sleep on Tannehill and Cutler. Don't sleep on Alex Smith. Don't sleep on Ryan Fitzpatrick.

They're not Aaron Rodgers or Matthew Stafford - but they can get hot and really shred a D when they're clicking. Not to mention 3 of those 4 will be playing in their house (well Fitz will be playing in their Canadian house).. and we know what seems to happen there.

Dude, you defended Gabbert. Gabbert's not even the best QB on his roster, and I can GUARENTEE you, Jax would NOT draft him over again.

Yes, the Hass point is germane. While rubes were chanting "Dilfer, Dilfer, Dilfer", Holmgren being the smart guy he is, realized that you CANT judge a QB by the stats of his first starts. Rookie/newly starting QB's need to be judged outside stats.

What you call "fawning", is actually an understanding of how to grade rookies QB's. Kind of how it is. Wilson has been average for a NFL QB, but ABOVE average for a NFL rookie.

Does this mean that Wilson will be great because he's been great for a rookie? No, it certainly doesn't (see Rick Mirer). But it's uninformed to look solely at his stats, specific mistakes, early tendencies. It's shortsided.

I am worried about every game from now on. Now we don't have any slack for the playoff run, because the Niners are going to seal the division up and we are going to be playing for the last wild card slot. Gotta play hard no matter what, and it seems the games we aren't afraid of are the ones we lose.

pehawk wrote:Dude, you defended Gabbert. Gabbert's not even the best QB on his roster, and I can GUARENTEE you, Jax would NOT draft him over again.

Yes, the Hass point is germane. While rubes were chanting "Dilfer, Dilfer, Dilfer", Holmgren being the smart guy he is, realized that you CANT judge a QB by the stats of his first starts. Rookie/newly starting QB's need to be judged outside stats.

What you call "fawning", is actually an understanding of how to grade rookies QB's. Kind of how it is. Wilson has been average for a NFL QB, but ABOVE average for a NFL rookie.

Does this mean that Wilson will be great because he's been great for a rookie? No, it certainly doesn't (see Rick Mirer). But it's uninformed to look solely at his stats, specific mistakes, early tendencies. It's shortsided.

Ya know, I approve of this post. ;-)

I've been trying to make many of the same points, but to some people, there is no such thing as a developmet process, so why even offer other QB rookie seasons for comparison? The guy continues to show overall improvement despite his receivers, OL and play calling, yet we still have guys who prefer to stand on the sidelines and toss in isolated negative nuggets as they would throw turds into a punch bowl. Looking for the motive would probably reveal that they disagreed with the original decision to start Wilson and just must dig this stuff up so they can say 'look, I was telling you guys all along' if Wilson fails in the end. Truthfully, I was behind the Idea of starting Flynn and letting Wison watch and learn for one season., but got behind RW when coach said he earned the job. Since then, he's shown remarkable improvemet FOR A ROOKIE and it's hard to ignore the large increments by which different elements of his game are improving even if those pieces haven't come together enough yet to significantly affect the bottom line. My ego wasn't bruised when PC decided to start him, and it's starting to look like the decision wasn't a bad one.

pehawk wrote:Dude, you defended Gabbert. Gabbert's not even the best QB on his roster, and I can GUARENTEE you, Jax would NOT draft him over again.

Yes, the Hass point is germane. While rubes were chanting "Dilfer, Dilfer, Dilfer", Holmgren being the smart guy he is, realized that you CANT judge a QB by the stats of his first starts. Rookie/newly starting QB's need to be judged outside stats.

What you call "fawning", is actually an understanding of how to grade rookies QB's. Kind of how it is. Wilson has been average for a NFL QB, but ABOVE average for a NFL rookie.

Does this mean that Wilson will be great because he's been great for a rookie? No, it certainly doesn't (see Rick Mirer). But it's uninformed to look solely at his stats, specific mistakes, early tendencies. It's shortsided.

Wilson is above average. An average QB is more like Sam Bradford, Joe Flacco, Carson Palmer, ect....

ivotuk wrote:LOL! I am soooo happy that Pete and John didn't settle for an "okay" QB that will get you wins but never win you the big one and shot for the moon. Look at all of those Seahawk fans that wanted Sanchez, Ponder, Gabbert (do we really know where he was ranked by PC/JS?), Locker, Cassell, I think Orton was mentioned once, Carson Palmer, Kevin Kolb!, etc, etc!

Pete and John are having the last laugh after 3 years of hearing it from experts in the draft and free agency (yes you Michael Lombardi).

Uhhh..

Wilson is 4-4 as a starter and actually has a lower rating than Palmer, Kolb and Ponder. He has an identical TD/INT ratio as Mark Sanchez (who btw would have been drafted by Jim Mora/Tim Ruskell - not Pete Carroll), and Blaine Gabbert with far inferior weapons and a generally awful team around him only averages about 10 yards less per start than Wilson.

So far Russell Wilson is "okay" .. and far from great. Maybe he winds up that way, but... nowhere near it now.

He's LIGHTYEARS ahead of the QB you chose as your screen name in his first 8 starts. He's already lapped him by a year or so. Hass even had the luxury of backing up in GB, playing for an offensive coach, and maybe the best QB tutor in this era.

But, why use common sense and an understanding for the game, when you can cram stats everywhere?

Hasselbeck, slow down on the Wilson hate. All the advanced stats (PFF, football outsiders, QBR) have acknowledged his play as well above average.

I hate to be like this, but I still have to say it: we face 8 more complete offenses this year. We still have to contend with o-lines, running backs, wide receivers, and tight ends, in addition to the QBs mentioned. I see no point in feeling good about one particular player we have to face, when so far just about any high school quarterback could drop a 5-yarder over the middle for a 9 to 12-yard first down against us.

ivotuk wrote:LOL! I am soooo happy that Pete and John didn't settle for an "okay" QB that will get you wins but never win you the big one and shot for the moon. Look at all of those Seahawk fans that wanted Sanchez, Ponder, Gabbert (do we really know where he was ranked by PC/JS?), Locker, Cassell, I think Orton was mentioned once, Carson Palmer, Kevin Kolb!, etc, etc!

Pete and John are having the last laugh after 3 years of hearing it from experts in the draft and free agency (yes you Michael Lombardi).

Uhhh..

Wilson is 4-4 as a starter and actually has a lower rating than Palmer, Kolb and Ponder. He has an identical TD/INT ratio as Mark Sanchez (who btw would have been drafted by Jim Mora/Tim Ruskell - not Pete Carroll), and Blaine Gabbert with far inferior weapons and a generally awful team around him only averages about 10 yards less per start than Wilson. Not sure when Matt Cassel was considered an option, as he was shipped to Kansas City the same year we hired Mora.

So far Russell Wilson is "okay" .. and far from great. Maybe he winds up that way, but... nowhere near it now.

damn man, you are seriously a downer , a lot... i couldn't give two s**t's about stats, i know what i see on the field week in and week out, that's all i need to know.. how bout something positive to say once in a while...

HawkAroundTheClock wrote:I hate to be like this, but I still have to say it: we face 8 more complete offenses this year. We still have to contend with o-lines, running backs, wide receivers, and tight ends, in addition to the QBs mentioned. I see no point in feeling good about one particular player we have to face, when so far just about any high school quarterback could drop a 5-yarder over the middle for a 9 to 12-yard first down against us.

Good points. Our D must show they can start putting a dent in those underneath routes w/o giving up big plays. This is a resilient group, so I'm hoping for the best. What worries me is they normally overcome most issues by the next game, but their weak under belly has been an issue since the second half of the Packers game. If the problem is truly something fundamental that begins with not being able to generate enough pressure from the DL, they are in for some headaches that could last for at least the rest of this season.

It's more stomachable to think that most every problem is youth/experience related, but it's starting to look like we aren't totally set personnell-wise on D (especially on DL). Too bad the O isn't ready to REALLY take off this year, because that would help a bunch.

Hasselbeck's input on Wilson sounds like my GF; its identical to what her analysis would be. "I heard on the morning news his stats weren't too good, that true?" I dont correct her, or try to explain further what the stats mean since he's a rookie. Why would I? It's sweet to show interest in my passion and she wouldn't understand the complexities.

His analysis is casual fan fodder. We come here to talk a little more in-depth.

pehawk wrote:He's LIGHTYEARS ahead of the QB you chose as your screen name in his first 8 starts. He's already lapped him by a year or so. Hass even had the luxury of backing up in GB, playing for an offensive coach, and maybe the best QB tutor in this era.

But, why use common sense and an understanding for the game, when you can cram stats everywhere?

Or you can just completely change what I said. That works too.

Never said Matt Hasselbeck was great after 8 games. That would be foolish. I think it's also foolish to say Wilson is so much better than the other guys he listed, when he's not. So far he's been pretty average.

The fawning everyone does over the guy though is truly comical.

I know. It's not like the people who wanted Flynn to start were fawning over him in such a manner. They were much more reasonable in their assessments.